Clown Car V: 2020 version!

[Farm Boy]

I am. I think it's generally a type of person for whom the target is always secondary. Self is first. Liability, appearance, "muh investments," whatever. The righteous.

If you want to talk about the tool by referencing 140 years ago, sure. Go all South Africa. Find your bliss. Doesn't leap to mind when somebody uses "cancel culture" as a term in 2020 and I just don't care for purposes of the discussion here. Sorry.

 

[Samson]

I am. I think it's generally a type of person for whom the target is always secondary. Self is first. Liability, appearance, "muh investments," whatever. The righteous.

If you want to talk about the tool by referencing 140 years ago, sure. Go all South Africa. Find your bliss. Doesn't leap to mind when somebody uses "cancel culture" as a term in 2020 and I just don't care for purposes of the discussion here. Sorry.

The big contemporary one is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. You think the defining thing about that is the type of people who are doing it, not the target? The other one I "do" is Nestle. Is that really more about me than babies?

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe. Seems I gave my examples and stipulated I don't care about your use of the term, but do tell. You care about how you use it. The HR managers doing piss tests and background checks care about the babies too.

 

[Samson]

Maybe. Seems I gave my examples and stipulated I don't care about your use of the term, but do tell. You care about how you use it. The HR managers doing piss tests and background checks care about the babies too.

I can put your examples into 3 classes:

• Paula Dean off the air: She was accused of being racist, and acknowledged 'that she had used the "N-word" at times'. She lost a few deals, her book sales soared and she is doing very well out of the whole thing.
  
• Kapernick an issue: He cannot get a million a month job because of his political opinions, despite presumably having a far better net approval rating than the president.

These what I would call boycotts, in that it is people using their purchasing power to enact political change. In both of these examples I guess the wielders are the buying public, the sharpeners are the media outlets/sports teams? The big difference it seems to me is the vulnerability of the target, in that Kapernick needs to be part of a major team to have any value, but Paula Dean can get rich on book sales. The important things in these issues is the effect they have. Does the boycott of Paula Dean make it less likely that people are racist? Does the boycott of Kapernick make it less likely people will speak out? (or whatever these are really about, I would never buy anything from either) This is what matter to me as the person making the decision.

• tear down that old battle rag

This is very different because the target is not a person, and I am not in a position to say what the target is exactly. I would say this is more a cultural movement than a specific boycott. That is a more semantic question, I would agree that the wielders, sharpeners and knives (if not targets) are much the same in the Nascar decision as the above 2 examples.

• refusing to recognize Protestant clergy rapes as often as Catholics
  
• that police are thousands upon thousands of empowered yet fallible people dealing with everyone's worst day ever, every day

These seem completely different question to me. These are political decisions related to the running of the state where you vote. You make decisions on things like this by voting, not by choosing what you buy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Cultures are people. They are the things people see themselves in, their songs, their food, their symbols, their soul. Nothing but people. Purchasing is social power. Hiring is social power. Voting is social power. I'm referring to the failure of pluralism and forgiveness, again, in the face of righteousness. You want it to be different questions, fine. Consider it three knives. I'm bored by that distinction and unlikely to be able to give you the respect and consideration you deserve.

Maybe to recall a conversation I had with another farm kid from the Midwest 80s, those of us who didn't know we were behind the times. There's an insult in Midwestern speech, but one that doesn't have a lot of teeth; "That's different," as in the jist of - "Earl seems a bit affectionate with his horses, but whatever, he's a bit different but his kids seem well adjusted and do great in school. He sits through every track meet." It's an insult that bears within its scope an appropriateness in being inappropriate. It's a sort of cultural ecumenism the righteous lose about almost everything. Three strikes. Offender registries. Background checks. No apologies for events long past. That's what I'm talking about, that's how I see the term Cancel Culture used. If you're different then fine. You can use it different.

 

[Samson]

Cultures are people. They are the things people see themselves in, their songs, their food, their symbols, their soul. Nothing but people. Purchasing is social power. Hiring is social power. Voting is social power. I'm referring to the failure of pluralism and forgiveness, again, in the face of righteousness. You want it to be different questions, fine. Consider it three knives. I'm bored by that distinction and unlikely to be able to give you the respect and consideration you deserve.

Maybe to recall a conversation I had with another farm kid from the Midwest 80s, those of us who didn't know we were behind the times. There's an insult in Midwestern speech, but one that doesn't have a lot of teeth; "That's different," as in the jist of - "Earl seems a bit affectionate with his horses, but whatever, he's a bit different but his kids seem well adjusted and do great in school. He sits through every track meet." It's an insult that bears within its scope an appropriateness in being inappropriate. It's a sort of cultural ecumenism the righteous lose about almost everything. Three strikes. Offender registries. Background checks. No apologies for events long past. That's what I'm talking about, that's how I see the term Cancel Culture used. If you're different then fine. You can use it different.

I see we are talking about two completely different things. While I am not sure I quite get what it means to you, something we may agree on is the effect that the unforgeting nature of the internet will harm people. It has really only started, as we have only had a few years for people to go from absently posting something online and political office. In a few years, everyone will have a youthful online presence unless they were very careful or very poor. What effect will that have on who can get elected? I think we should be teaching kids about how to control their data online at the same time we teach them algebra. If you have any actions we should take to help the problem it would help me get what you mean.

 

[Farm Boy]

They can't. They're kids. The society will curtail its abuses or it will be righteous.

Well, I suppose maybe kids can learn some of that control. We can teach them to fear us, and maybe yes, we should.

 

[Samson]

They can't. They're kids. The society will curtail its abuses or it will be righteous.

Well, I suppose maybe kids can learn some of that control. We can teach them to fear us, and maybe yes, we should.

I totally believe they could. The tools are out there. If they are told of the need for them, they will be able to work the tools better than us.

 

[Farm Boy]

The tools will change on them, like they have for us. They'll need fear, not hope, for that sort of control.

 

[Samson]

The tools will change on them, like they have for us. They'll need fear, not hope, for that sort of control.

The primary tool that protects us is the same now as it was in the usenet days, namely to keep your identities separate. How careful you have to be nowadays is a bit different, but the base tool is the same.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's questionable how effective that is depending on what actor you're worried about and it's also questionable that will continue to be allowed. It certainly isn't allowed everywhere. And that's before losing control of your data, or somebody else losing control of your data that they collected on you regardless of your permission or desire.

 

[Samson]

It's questionable how effective that is depending on what actor you're worried about and it's also questionable that will continue to be allowed. It certainly isn't allowed everywhere. And that's before losing control of your data, or somebody else losing control of your data that they collected on you regardless of your permission or desire.

I agree. I do not think this alters my point. In the usenet days everyone had all the data, you just had to deal with it.

 

[Farm Boy]

This isn't usenet all the data. This is big data. This is security cameras inside your home, smart garage door openers, and gps on your phone. It's Alexa knowing what noises you make when you climax. I swore in the background of my own house and got a call from the principle of the school district because the moms are just champing for gossip and called in to complain. The tools have changed. The palantiri are not all accounted for.

 

[Samson]

This isn't usenet all the data. This is big data. This is security cameras inside your home, smart garage door openers, and gps on your phone. It's Alexa knowing what noises you make when you climax. I swore in the background of my own house and got a call from the principle of the school district because the moms are just champing for gossip and called in to complain. The tools have changed. The palantiri are not all accounted for.

This says to me more about how two people can see the same thing and come to very different conclusions. I see this as confirmation of my point that the solution is education, so people can make informed decisions about their use of technology. You see this as confirmation that the use of such technology is unavoidable.

Online cameras, door openers and Alexa are all massive privacy costs with very little utility I can see. I use a phone, but always have second hand, or occasionally gray market, cheap things. I always assume they are compromised by more nefarious actors than google. My penultimate phone came all in chinese, I always assumed everything I did was read by the CCP. My current one is a hand me down from my cousin, and I do not treat it much differently. I have a computer for secure communication.

I guess I would like to hear the story of the swearing, but if you swore on a zoom call with 30 young kids then someone from the school asking you not to do that please is perhaps reasonable.

 

[Farm Boy]

You'd have had to been listening for it in fleeting on the background of an open mic. It wasn't repeated and no, getting bullied by the principle over a social nicety can **** off along with all the reasonable hens. Pain is their jam. The computer isn't much more secure, your data isn't secure. Your finances aren't either. None of that depends on your actions. You can go live all cash if you want, but you aren't getting tax returns.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why did you quote me?

+1 Same

 

[Samson]

You'd have had to been listening for it in fleeting on the background of an open mic. It wasn't repeated and no, getting bullied by the principle over a social nicety can **** off along with all the reasonable hens. Pain is their jam. The computer isn't much more secure, your data isn't secure. Your finances aren't either. None of that depends on your actions. You can go live all cash if you want, but you aren't getting tax returns.

You can be pretty secure online. Just using tor gets you a long way, far beyond my risk profile requires. One just needs to use cash and other less traceable forms of exchange in the few situations it is needed, and it seems to work well enough to me.

All I am arguing is that kids should be taught about these things, and the mitigating actions they can take. I did not think it would be controversial.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What did they find?

Massive Cheeting, clearly.

@Samson it seems to me that we will (or maybe already have) reached a point where people have become pretty acclimated to the lack of privacy our society has created and consequently desensitized to a lot of the results. Trump's election, and unshakeable popularity appears to be a pretty good example of this. All the endless cringey stuff he did and said, all the stuff that was dredged up over the course of the campaign and his Presidency, and you kept hearing "this would end the career of any normal politician"... but I think that maybe no... maybe we as a society are just about past that stage. People just don't gaf anymore. They don't care about what you got caught doing or saying on tape, they don't care about what you posted on the internet 5 years ago, or yesterday FTM... they don't care about this or that thing you did 20 years ago. If they like you, they like you, and they aren't going to be talked out of it by people that are opposed to you.

As people become more accustomed to the idea that the internet makes everything last forever, and there is access to unlimited information, real and fake... they settle into the notion that everyone has something on them that some opponent is going to dig up (or fabricate) at some point. So if you are willing to abandon the people you like based on that, while the people on the other "side" stick by their favourites... then all you do is create a lopsided situation where you lose all your heroes, while the other guy gets to keep all his... because he was willing to handwave, dare I say, "forgive" the flaws, misdeeds, gaffes, bad-statements, etc., while you were not. I don't know if I would call it "forgiveness" exactly, but that seems to be as good a word for it as any... so maybe. Or maybe you can call it "prisoners dilemma" or "partisanship" or "double standards" or "hypocrisy"... whatever you call it, the result is the same. "Forgiveness" sounds nicer, but in the end, it seems that we pretty much "forgive" the folks we like, and "cancel" the ones we don't... but the liking and not liking comes first, rather than after.

 

[El_Machinae]

I thought that was a problem for Trump voters, turns out its a problem for Biden voters.

It's a problem for both? How was that not obvious?

If someone has their fingers in International dealings, they become susceptible to international pressure. I can see someone being concerned about Biden, I can see somebody being concerned about Trump, I can see somebody concerned about Hillary Clinton.

I don't know about the Bushes, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Someone concerned about Trump but not about Biden is showing selective bias, not projection. And that would be distinguished from efforts at identifying proportionality between the relative concerns.

 

[Farm Boy]

but the liking and not liking comes first, rather than after.

Forgiveness is the wrong word, then. You cannot forgive something you do not mind. You cannot find inappropriate something you do not mind. That's still righteousness, not pluralism.